Here's a question that's been bugging me: Why're we proliferating? (or, to be Indian about it, Whycome we proliferate?)

The US signed an agreement to give support to India's nuclear program but didn't insist on a seperation of their civil vs. military purposes. And our President went over there to do it.

  • Aren't we a signer of the NPT? Yes, I know the US is a bit flexible with treaties, so this is more of a lead in bulletpoint. India's not an NPT signatory and in 1974 blew up a "peaceful" nuclear bomb using technology we'd supplied them, ostensibly for peaceful purposes.
  • Didn't Congress make a law that says we're not going to proliferate, the Atomic Energy Act?  Where's Congress's outrage on this deal with India? There's an argument here that says, well, we've got to have good relations with India and allow them an internal source of energy (nuclear) because otherwise they'll eventually get power-hungry and either compete with us for oil or go to Russia or China for their nuclear power assistance needs. Our energy security is a prime reason in this argument. I was under the impression that proliferation of nuclears was one of or greatest security-security issues?
  • How come Bush's doing corporate interests' work? Not just nuclear, but also outsourcing. Oh sure, economically (theoretically) it makes sense to let the jobs flow throughout the global market. I'm behind that, actually. It's the practical matter of it that isn't panning out yet.

He also made a little speech about how the US shouldn't fear outsourcing. I guess he didn't get to see the quality of the outsourcers. Anyone who actually works in the tech field and has had to manage Indian outsourcers (like myself) knows that it's a real mixed bag over there. The bottom line being cheaper after multiple "do overs" doesn't justify the poor quality of efficiency.

There's no doubt there're some bright people there. Statistically, that's how it's got to be. Having a master's degree there is not the same as here. A lot of people have to get a Master's degree just to encounter a "cpu" unlike our kids who IM "OMG LOL" as they vote for American Idol.

Also, don't we have better representatives to do this sort of thing? Bill Gate goes over to India, the ex US Ambassador to India works for an firm lobbying for India and GE does nuclear support. We've even got a Secretary of Energy and Commerce. What's so important that our President's become our chief diplomat for proliferation in our interests and quelling of protectionist fears?  Is making India's energy needs nuclear instead of oil-based enough of a pressure to ignore the fears of nuclear weapons proliferation?  I've argued in the past that nuclear weapons are passe and not much of a threat, but that's predicated on how difficult it is to get new nuclear development going in a country. This seems like a different case because India has shown that they use civil nuclear technology for military uses.

I don't mean to conflate outsourcing and nuclear deals, either. They're seperate issues, tied together by our head guy doing the advocation, which is, in and of itself, cause for pause.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has produced a document entitled "U.S. Nuclear Cooperation With India: Issues for Congress" which has gone through three revisions, two of which I quote here:
US Nuclear Cooperation with India (pdf, html summary), CRS/State Department, 07/29/2005

If implemented, this cooperation would dramatically shift U.S. nonproliferation policy and practice towards India. Such cooperation would also contravene the multilateral export control guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which was formed in response to India's proliferation. At a time when the United States has called for all states to strengthen their domestic export control laws and implementation and for tighter multilateral controls, U.S. nuclear cooperation with India would require loosening its own nuclear export legislation, as well as creating an NSG exception. Although some states may agree that it is necessary to create a new paradigm for India, others may believe that this agreement undercuts the basic bargain of the NPT – peaceful nuclear cooperation in exchange for forswearing nuclear weapons. Observers note that U.S.-India cooperation could have wide-ranging implications for the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, and could prompt other suppliers, like China, to justify their supplying other non-nuclearweapon states, like Pakistan.

US Nuclear Cooperation with India (pdf, html summary), CRS/State Department, 01/12/2006

India does not meet nonproliferation criteria for nuclear cooperation under current U.S. law (Atomic Energy Act; P.L. 95-242; 42 U.S.C. 2153 et seq.). As such, the President would have to exempt the agreement from those nonproliferation criteria and submit nuclear exports for congressional review on an annual basis. The President would also have to determine, subject to congressional review, that continued exports were necessary, even though India has tested nuclear weapons and continues its nuclear weapons program. Congress would have to approve such an agreement with a joint resolution. The Administration, which might propose legislation to Congress in early 2006, reportedly prefers to create an exception for India to existing provisions of law through stand-alone legislation.